Classic British Flight Sim

Ben Hartmann wrote:then obviously the need to (a) recouperate their cost spent and (b) make a profit...... regardless of the quality or cost to the consumer.....
..........but then again when the product doesn't work as it should do.....thats where the trouble is

Rgds

Ben

To me "HOPEING TO RECOUP COST AND MAKE A PROFIT" is more to the point. EXPECTING TO MAKE A PROFIT regardless of the quality or cost to the consumer is a bad attitude. And normally at the cost of others.

Chris H wrote:

Many Milviz models got slammed when released, it'll be interesting if the same attitudes prevail when the're released via other outlets or whether it was just general Alphasim bashing.

I personally couldn't care less where the developers get their models as long as the final quality of the finished product is of a quality that suits the price. If Alphasim or IRIS or the Acme Payware Company and anyone else want to use Milviz that's fine by me as long as they take the time to correct any errors in the model before release. If they don't correct the model errors then they deserve bashing. In fact perhaps bashing is the wrong word as it implies criticism for the sake of criticism, but the errors should certainly be pointed out in reviews, to be honest I'd expect nothing less so I can make an informed decision before parting with my hard earned pennies.

Ohh I quite agree, the source is of zero relevance to the paying customer, however in this context the source is usually consistanty good for there sphere of expertise, I'd have to be honest and say Milviz models are more suited to FSx and its poly limit free enviroment, the poly reduction required for FS9 can have an adverse impact on model quality.

Thus is the source is unifrom then the only area that has any impact on final model is the conversion house to which Milviz has sold, generally the conversion will be the same where ever you go so the end result should be the same, thus if a model attracts criticism, is it down to simply criticism because thats what people generally do with each release and its almost an accepted norm, or is it because the criticism is down to actual model failings during the conversion process ?.

Taking this a step futher and more hyperthetical and reflective. If supplier A produces a product with lets say 10% error, it will attract a certain amount of criticism, if said supplier produces 10 products and they all have a 10% error, what of the criticism then, is it criticism of the 10% error or is it criticism of 10 models with 10% errors, what are people actually criticising, the small error in the tenth model or the overall every model has 10% wrong with it ?. If you accept every model will have a 10% error then the criticism is not based on the model flaws but supplier flaws.

I think Alphasim critics have moved from the per model criticism to a generic company criticism and that is much harder to shake or negate.

Best

Michael

Michael davies wrote: Ohh I quite agree, the source is of zero relevance to the paying customer

Hello Again Michael

I disagree on that note, as I feel that the cost of buying this third-party 3DS model for example is reflected in the sales prices stated.

I may be wrong however

Rgds

Ben

Ben Hartmann wrote:

Michael davies wrote: Ohh I quite agree, the source is of zero relevance to the paying customer

Hello Again Michael

I disagree on that note, as I feel that the cost of buying this third-party 3DS model for example is reflected in the sales prices stated.

I may be wrong however

Rgds

Ben

Aha !, interesting conjecture , your absolutely right, the cost of buying in professional models is causing the price to rise, but is that right ?, why should the customer stomach higher prices just off the back of the source files parentage?, it should be a set price where ever the source came from, it should be irrelevant to you the paying customer as to where the source came from and technically from whom.

What I should of said and actually meant was " the source 'should' be of zero relevance", it shouldn't matter where the source came from, customers are only interested in the final product and if it meets the price/fidelity criteria.

The problem with professional models is that there paid a one off sum, so they don't care if its a seller or not, they have got there cash, they also don't have to support after market issues, the onus on picking a productive item or one that will recoup a return is down to the seller, you can do that by either ensuring your product is what the market wants or if marginal, making sure the cost of the product covers the fees as quickly as possible.

Professional models do not come with any systems or sim related functions, there only a model, so the higher price is only for the polys and paint and the speed at which they can be delivered, and therein lies the crux of the issue, your paying a higher price for a raw shell and still having to add all the extras in, there are other ways to acquire raw shells and probably to the same standard much cheaper, but at a drastically low production rate.

The consumer is paying a higher price for a professional source poly and paint model and the speed at which it can be delivered to market, being as there are other models of the same standard elsewhere then your effectively only paying for the speed in production, do you think thats right ?, I don't, your rewarding the wrong people for the wrong issues, time is not something people should be paying extra for IMHO.

Compare the Skysim Hawk and any recent professional model from other developers, the Hawk is cheaper, maybe better in some aspects but poly and paint wise pretty close to professional model levels, yet the Hawk took 10 months to complete by effectively one man, the other models may have come to market in 4 months. So what are people actually paying for ?.

Best

Michael

Hi Michael,

Sorry i was under the impression that most of the list i said was from Milviz... The Mil i was meaning was the Mil-28... :roll:

Im having to agree with Chris H on buying an outside model and converting it to FS?, and the fact that the mistakes needing taking out, but this can sometimes just take as long as building a model from scratch...

Dont forget price and recooperating costs go hand in hand, for instance, you can sell a product for less than you wish but this price drop may entail a larger sales number, and also visa versa...

Chris Sykes wrote:Hi Michael,

Im having to agree with Chris H on buying an outside model and converting it to FS?, and the fact that the mistakes needing taking out, but this can sometimes just take as long as building a model from scratch...

I think my views are not being understood very well here ?....the downside of fencing with glass foils !. I'm not defending bought in models, not one bit, they do me out of a job LOL, mind with my relaxed production rate, they do/did release a lot of pressure to keep proping up the production rate.

These days the modeling take a mere fraction of the time it used too, mapping takes a lot more now, especially with high fidelity VCs and external models, texturing takes a litle longer due to the maps increased complexities. Many models needed a lot of 'tweaking' and yes it would have been far easier to build from new if you only consider the poly side of the equation, add in mapping and texturing and its probably still faster to buy in models.

Price viz perceived sales numbers is a hard one to quantify, you dont often actually know how many of a product your going to sell until it goes on sale, so pitching your price is very hard, I'm going to sell 100 at £10 and that gives me £1000, ok taing £1000 as the base figure to make a return and remove the number of units sold, now what price do you put per product ?, you cant, you have to guess, lets say £15, you need to sell 67 to get the same return, you may still sell 100 and be quids in, you may only sell 50 in which case you should have priced it at £20.

Its a tri figure equation, sadly you only know two parts of it for certain, not knowing the third tends to have a rather large impact on the previous two.

The Mi-28 was from Milviz if i recall correctly.

Best

Michael

Chris Sykes wrote:Dont forget price and recooperating costs go hand in hand, for instance, you can sell a product for less than you wish but this price drop may entail a larger sales number, and also visa versa...

Absolutely. If we were still in the days of £10 AlphaSim models, then I would have been tempted to buy the Scimitar, Hunter, Tornado, MH-53J, Vampire, Blackhawk and perhaps the F-104. As it is, I've only bought the Tornado, and only the base pack. Potentially, they could have £70 of my money, rather than £20-25 of it!

I'm sure I'm not alone in a scenario like this...

To date I've spent over £400 at Alphasim according to the current store, and probably a lot more on top of that from before their new store went live.

To be honest I'm more than prepared to put my money up for something that is worth paying for, the only thing that puts me off buying more at Alphasim these days than I already do is Phils occasional snide remarks about the "classic British community" being the cause of all of the evils in the world from famine to global warming. Whenever I see them I just loose all interest and where as I would have previously bought a package that looked good from the screenshots and blurb I now tend only to buy the ones that I'm 100% already interested in. That sort of vitriol just makes you think twice sometimes.

Michael, thats cool i understood your views, i was trying to show another side of it... anyway i think we all understand it now :roll:

I think a fundemental problem with AS is that the base cost of any model, if expensive enough, e.g. bought in, precludes lengthy development and testing of functionality, FDEs etc (if there is an etc), so these don't get done, don't get done to the required standard and don't get tested (either way). Like any other business, cash out means a need for cash in exceeding that of the stuff going out so the models are driven more by the demands of the business than the demands of the community. As they say "time is money" so in the end Phil chooses to get stuff out the door and earning a fee as soon as he thinks it will sell.

It's a business model... but not an attractive one as far as we users are concerned (at least I don't think so).

Regards,
Chris